Server status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that `validate` performs an external AnkiWeb check on the stored session, which explains the open-world trait. It does not contradict the annotations, though it adds little about failure modes or latency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences with the core output described first and the conditional enhancement second. No filler, no restating of the name, and the `validate` behavior is front-loaded where it matters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the readOnly/openWorld annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with a fully documented single parameter, an agent has everything required to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Check the session against AnkiWeb' by clarifying the check answers whether the session is still signed in. The conditional 'also' framing makes the parameter's effect on output concrete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates the exact resources returned: server version, data directory, and stored AnkiWeb session state. This is unmistakably a diagnostics/status tool and trivially distinguishable from the deck-oriented siblings (list_my_decks, download_shared_deck, etc.).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The second sentence gives a clear conditional trigger: pass `validate` when you also want AnkiWeb to confirm the session is still signed in. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but for a status tool none are really needed, so this is clear context without exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.